Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-20 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION Monday, August 20, 2012 7 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. July 16, 2012 5. New Business a. Wetland Buffer Variance for the Construction of a Swimming Pool at 1978 Kennard Street 6. Unfinished Business 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. August 13 City Council Meeting Update – Clean Up of Maplewood Dump and Keller Golf Course Improvements b. Maplewood Mall Stormwater Open House – Saturday, September 15 c. Maplewood Nature Center Programs 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4.a. MINUTES CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION 7:00 p.m., Monday, July 16, 2012 Council Chambers, City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Edmundson. 2. ROLL CALL Randee Edmundson, Chair Present Judith Johannessen, Vice Chair Present Carol Mason Sherrill, Commissioner Present Ann Palzer, Commissioner Present Absent Bill Schreiner, Commissioner Dale Trippler, Commissioner Present Ginny Yingling, Commissioner Present Staff Present Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Yingling added 8.a. Update on Fish Creek Commissioner Trippler added 8 b. Plastic Bottles Staff added 9.c. Maplewood Mall Rainwater Management Extreme Makeover Grand Opening Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Yingling. Ayes – All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners Trippler and Yingling recommended minor changes to the June 18, 2012, ENR Commission minutes. Staff took notes on the changes and will update the minutes for the record. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the June 18, 2012, ENR Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Yingling. Ayes – Chair Edmundson, Commissioners Johannessen, Trippler & Yingling Abstentions – Commissioner Mason Sherrill & Palzer The motion passed. July 16, 2012 1 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Keller Golf Course Renovations – Approval of the Removal of Two Incidental Wetlands and Reclassification of One Wetland i. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report and answered questions of the commission. ii. Ramsey County Representative, Kevin Finley, addressed and answered questions of the commission. iii. Ramsey County Consultant Chad Lockwood of Loucks Associates out of Maple Grove addressed and answered questions of the commission. Keller Golf Course Renovation Comments by Members of the Commission Included: - Why will the County spend $12 million on this project, and then threaten to close down its County Workhouse landscape operation? - Parking spaces at 9 feet wide are too narrow. The County should follow the City’s parking code of 9½ foot wide parking spaces. - The County could widen the parking spaces if they reduced the number of parking spaces. It appears that the County is constructing too many parking spaces in the new design. - There are two heritage trees that will be removed with the construction of the clubhouse. Why weren’t these trees considered when the County did the planning for the site? Can these trees be saved? - The landscape plan shows some of the replacement trees near the clubhouse to be nonnative to Minnesota. - There were concerns expressed about impervious surface area. The County explained that an old golf course road within the course is being removed entirely. This will offset any new impervious planned for the site. - Since the golf course is certified by the Audubon Society, is there a way that the County could install signage or use the site as an education source for people who golf the course or school groups? - The revegetation maps submitted are unclear. The County should explain where new native grasses are being planted around the wetlands. The County explained that native grasses will be planted around Wetland 5, creating a 75-foot buffer, and in areas of the golf course. Wetland 10, which has been determined to be an incidental wetland, will be deepened for irrigation purposes. Turf grass will continue to be located around that irrigation pond. Commissioner Yingling moved to approve staff recommendation to: 1. Add Wetlands 1 and 2 to the city’s wetland map as stormwater ponds. 2. Downgrade Wetland 3 from a Manage B wetland to a stormwater pond. 3. Remove wetlands 7 and 10 as they have been shown to be incidental wetlands. Seconded by Commissioner Palzer. Ayes – Chair Edmundson, Commissioner’s Johannessen, Palzer, Trippler & Yingling Nay – Commissioner Mason Sherrill The motion passed. This item goes to the City Council on August 13, 2012. July 16, 2012 2 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes b. Fish Creek Master Plan and Management Plan i. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave a brief report on the Fish Creek Master Plan and Management Plan which is required as part of the grant funding for the site. Staff and commissions will hold public meetings to gain feedback on the plan over the next few months. Staff is asking for volunteers from several commissions to attend each of the meeting dates. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Mike Bryan, 1928 Kennard, Swimming Pool Variance Mr. Bryan stated he will be presenting an application to the ENR Commission for a wetland buffer variance to construct a swimming pool at his residence in the next few weeks. He inquired what information the commission would like to see. The commission responded that it is important to have maps which reflect the location of the pool to the wetland, and any improvements that Mr. Bryan is doing to the buffer and to mitigate the variance. 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Fish Creek Update Commissioner Yingling indicated that the Fish Creek group will be holding a barbeque, bingo, beer fundraiser at the Maplewood Community Center on July 26, 2012, from 6 – 9 p.m. For more information contact the Maplewood Nature Center. b. Commissioner Trippler discussed plastic bottles Commissioner Trippler said he read an article dated June 20, 2012 from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that every minute 2,900 plastic bottles are sold in Minnesota and 75% of those plastic bottles are not recycled. The state needs a deposit law to help with this issue. He would like to see the commission address this issue on an upcoming agenda. th Staff indicated that during the July 4 celebration at Hazelwood Park the city used its existing park recycling bins and placed about 60 additional clear stream recycling containers out for us. The city collected 240 pounds of recycled materials – mostly beverage bottles. There has to be a place in public spaces for people to recycle bottles in order for it to happen. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. National Night Out – Tuesday, August 7, 2012. The ENR Commission will again be attending National Night Out parties and distributing recycling bins and other environmental literature. Tennis Recycling representatives will be joining the commission this year. Commissioners should let staff know if they are interested in participating. b. Maplewood Nature Center Programs – Staff listed upcoming programs at the Maplewood Nature Center. Contact 651-249-2170 for further information. July 16, 2012 3 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes c. Maplewood Mall Rainwater Management Extreme Makeover Grand Opening – The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District is planning a grand opening for the stormwater improvements at the Maplewood Mall on September 15, 2012, from 11:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. They have asked the City and several commissions to participate in this event. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chair Edmundson adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. July 16, 2012 4 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes Agenda Item 5.a. MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin,AICP, Planner Charles Ahl,Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Approval of a Variance from Wetland Buffer Requirement — Backyard Swimming Pool LOCATION: 1978 Kennard Street VOTE REQUIRED:Simple Council Majority Required for Approval of a Variance DATE: August 14, 2012 INTRODUCTION Michael and Kathleen Bryan areproposing to install an in-ground swimming pool within the backyard of their home at 1978 Kennard Street. Their entire backyard is within the wetland buffer area meaning a variance would be needed to build a swimming pool in any location. Request The applicant is requesting the following: A51-foot wetland buffer variance from the Manage B wetlandon the east side of theBryan’s property. The code requires a 75-foot buffer from the Manage Bwetland. DISCUSSION Wetland Buffer Variance There is a Manage B wetland located on the east side of the property. The city’s wetland ordinance requires a 75-foot buffer adjacent a Manage B.The entire backyard of the Bryan’s home is within this 75-foot buffer area meaning any placement of the pool would require a variance to be approved by the city council. The current status of the backyard is mowed turf grass – whichis allowed by the city’s wetland ordinance. It should be noted that none of the Bryan’s neighbor’s have nativeornaturalized bufferareas. Allthenearbyhomesmaintainmowedturfgrassbackyards.Ifthevarianceis approvedtheapplicantwouldberequiredtofollowallothercityordinancesapplicableto installinganin-groundswimmingpool.A fenceisrequiredaroundthepool.Theapplicantis proposingtoconnecttwosectionsoffencealreadyexistingonthenorthandsouthproperty lines.The newfencesectionswouldrunneartheedgeoftheexistingwetland.Staff’s opinion is an in-ground swimming pool at this location will not be any more detrimental to the adjacent wetland than a mowed backyard. Staff is supportive of the proposed wetlandbuffer variance for the following reasons: 1.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanentstructures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. 2.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. 4.The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plans and had no concerns and does not require a permit. Engineering Comments Refer to the report by Randy Lindblomof the Maplewood Engineering Department dated July 26, 2012.Mr. Lindblom’sconditions noted in his report should be made conditions of this project. Building Official’s Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments: Must meet pool code for safety fence. Environmental Planner’s Comments Shann Finwall, the environmental planner, had the following comments: No use of rip rap. Mitigation of variance with buffer plantings. Consider bringing east fence location closer to the pool and home. Must comply with city’s tree preservation ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution approving awetland buffer variance from the Manage Bwetland on the east side of the site. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. 2.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additionalbuffer plantings. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. 4.The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plansand had no concerns and does not require a permit. Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Randy Lindblom andthe comments made by Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official and Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner, made within this report. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 0.28acres Existing Use: Single family home SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Single family homes South:Single family homes East:Wetland and single family home West:Kennard Streetandsingle family homes PLANNING Land Use Plan: LDR(low density residential) Zoning: R1(single dwelling) Findings for Wetland Buffer Variance Approval Section 12-310of the city code allows the city council to grant variancesto wetland buffers. All variances must follow the requirements provided in Minnesota State Statutes. The council may grant a wetland buffer variance according to the language below: (1)Procedures. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: a.The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. b.Before the city council acts on a variance, the environmental and natural resources commission will make a recommendation to the planning commission, who will in turn make a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing for the variance. The city shall notify property owners within 500 feet of the property for which the variance is being requested at least ten days before the hearing. c.The city may require the applicant to mitigate any wetland, stream, or buffer alteration impacts with the approval of a variance, including, but not limited to, implementing one or more of the strategies listed in subsection12-310(e)(4) (mitigation). d.To approve a variance, the council must make the following findings as depicted in Minn. Stats.§ 44-13: 1.In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control; 2.Consistent with the comprehensive plan; 3.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. APPLICATION/DECISION DEADLINE City staffreceived the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 13, 2012. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The deadlinefor city action on this proposal is September 11, 2012. If needed, the city is able to extend this review deadline by an additional 60 days p:sec15\1978 Kennard Street\1978 Kennard Pool Wetland Buffer Variance_082112 Attachments 1.Location Map 2.Future Land Use Map 3.Zoning Map 4.Wetland Map 5.Site Plan 6.Applicant’s Letter of Request dated July 9, 2012 7.Engineering Plan Reviewdated July 26, 2012 8.Variance Resolution Attachment 1 1978 Kennard 1978 Kennard Street Location Map Attachment 2 1978 Kennard Street Future Land Use Map LDR - Low Density Residential Attachment 3 1978 Kennard Street Zoning Map R1 - Single Dwelling Attachment 4 Manage B Wetland 1978 Kennard Street Wetland Location Map Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: 1978 Kennard backyard swimming pool OWNER: Michael E. Bryan & Kathy M. Bryan COMMENTS BY: Randy Lindblom,Senior Engineering Technician DATE: 7-26-2012 PLAN SET: Sketch by Atlantis Pool/Ecowater REPORTS: Home OwnerNarrativeto Michael Martin A single family homeowner is requesting to building a backyard swimming pool. There is a Manage B Wetland just east of the property which requires a 75 foot setback. The house currently sits around 67 feet from the wetland edge. It is not possible for the property owner to build a pool anywhere on site without a variance. A 51-foot variance is being requested to site the pool. The closest the pool would be to the wetland is 24 feet, the farthest 28 feet. The applicant needs city approval for wetland buffer variance. The following are engineeringreview comments and act as conditions prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits: Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)It appears that there are no easements for storm sewer on the property. The pond and wetland drain to the south across Frost Ave. An agreement between the homeowner and City shallbeagreed to detailingthat the City is not liable for any damage to the pool in the case offluctuating ground water, or if the pond ever backed up enough to have encroachment into the pool or any appurtenances to the pool. 2)Itisadvised that a boring or test holes be dug and investigated prior to the pool being constructed. If there is evidence of ground water an engineer shallbe hired to advise on the construction of the pool. Grading and Erosion Control 3)All disturbed areas shall be graded to slopes of 3H:1Vor less. This may require the use of retaining walls. Should retaining walls be necessary, they shall be placed as close to the pool area as possible. 4)Erosion control shall be provided at the edge of the wetland being either bio-roll or silt fence. Permanent restoration of alldisturbed areas shallbe restored within 10 days of completion of grading activities. Attachment 7 Other 5)The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies. 6)All dewatering operations shall direct water to the street in front of the property. Dewatering into the wetland is not allowed. All waters shall be de-chlorinated prior to discharge. Attachment 8 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Michael and Kathleen Bryanapplied for a variance from the wetland protection ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to property located at 1978 Kennard Street. The property identificationnumberfor thisproperty is: 15-29-22-14-0026 WHEREAS, Ordinance Section12-310, the Environmental Protection and Critical Area Ordinance dealing with Wetlands, requires a wetland protection buffer of 75feet in width adjacent to Manage B wetlands. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing wetland protection buffers of 24feet, requiring a variance of 51feet, from the Manage B wetland. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1.On August 20, 2012, the environmental and natural resources commission reviewed this variance and recommended __________. 2. On August 21, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ______the variance request. 3. The city council held a public meeting on August 27, 2012, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________the above- described variances based on the following reasons: 1.Strict enforcement ofthe ordinance would cause the applicant practical difficulties because complying with the wetland buffer requirement stipulated by the ordinance would prohibit the building of any permanent structures, substantially diminishing the potential of this lot. 2.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland becausethe site will be planted with additional buffer plantings. 3.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed swimming pool would be built in an area that is already maintained as lawn, which is also allowed by ordinance. 4. The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewedthe applicant’s plansand had no concerns and does not require a permit. Attachment 8 Conditions of Approval Approval of the wetland buffer variance shall be subject to complying with all of the conditions of approval in the EngineeringReview report by Randy Lindblom and the comments made by Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official and Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner, made within this report. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on _________, 2012.